The “Vexed Questions” of Our Party

The “Liquidationist” and “National” Questions

Written:Written in November 1912Published:First published inPismo Dyskusyjne(Discussion Sheet) No. 1, August 1913.

      Translated from the Polish.

      Signed:N. Lenin.

      Published according to the text inPismo Dyskusyjne.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,[1975],

      Moscow,Volume 18,

      pages405-412.Translated:Stepan ApresyanTranscription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      (2004).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

InAugust 1912 the Executive Committee of the Social-Democracy of
Poland and Lithuania convened a “territorial

conference”[2]of the Polish Social-Democrats. It will be recalled
that at present the Executive of the Polish Social-Democracy is an
executivewithouta party. In Warsaw, the Polish capital, the
local Social-Democratic organisation emphatically condemned the
disorganising policy of the Executive, which replied by resorting to vile
anonymous accusations of provocation, set up a fictitious Warsaw
organisation and hastened to convene a suitably rigged territorial
conference “of its own”.

Subsequentelections to the Duma by the Warsaw worker curia fully
revealed the spurious character of the supporters of the Executive: among
the 66 delegates there were 34 Social-Democrats, including only 3
(doubtful) supporters of the Executive.

Thisintroductory remark is necessary for the reader to regard the
resolution of the territorial conference of the S.D.P. and L. that we are
going to discussonlyas a resolution of theTyszkaExecutive, and under no circumstances as a decision of the Polish worker
Social-Democrats.

Thequestion of the Polish Social-Democrats’ attitude
towards the R.S.D.L.P. is an unusually important and burning one. Therefore
thedecisionadopted by the Tyszka conferenceon this question, however hard it may be to take itseriously,
deserves closer study.

Itis hard to take seriously the Tyszka resolution, which is full of
abuse, if only because of its attitude to thefundamentalquestion, that of liquidationism.

Thishas been a fundamental question in the R.S.D.L.P. during
1908–1912. The Party has been terribly broken up by the
counter-revolution. It is making every effort to re-establish its
organisation. Andthroughout the four yearsof counter-revolution,
it has been waging acontinuousstruggle against the little groups
of Social-Democrats who want to liquidate the Party.

Doesit not follow clearly from this that one who has not settled the
issue of liquidationism explicitlyhas no rightto call himself a
Party member?

TheTyszka conference, too, in its resolution on the attitude to the
R.S.D.L.P. allotted more space to liquidationism than to anything else. The
conference admitted that liquidationism was “a most serious obstacle to
the development of the R.S.D.L.P. and a grave danger to its very
existence”.

“Overtand consistent liquidationism and revolutionary
Social-Democracy are mutually exclusive,” said the resolution.

Asyou see, Tyszka and Co. tackled the problem with a bold and firm
hand—and dodged solving it!

Whoare, then, the “overt and consistent” liquidators? And what is
the practical conclusion that follows from theexperience of four years
of struggleagainst liquidationism?

Thesenatural and necessary questions were answered in clear, precise
and convincing terms by the January 1912 Conference of the R.S.D.L.P.,
which said that the liquidators were the group associated with the
publicationsNasha ZaryaandZhivoye Dyelo. This group
had placed itself out side the Party.

Onemay consider this answer right or wrong, but one cannot deny that
it is quite clear, one cannot evade making a clear statement of one’s
attitude!

Butthe Tyszka conference sought precisely to evade the issue, twist
and turn like a petty thief. If it is not true thatNasha Zaryarepresents open and consistent liquidators,as we said clearly in January 1912, then why did Tyszka and Co. not
disclose our error to the Polish worker Social-Democrats in August 1912? If
it is not true thatNasha Zaryahas placed itselfoutsidethe Party, and if you, Messrs. Tyszka, Rosa Luxemburg and Warski, consider
itto be in the Party, why did not you say so plainly? It was your
direct duty to the Polish worker Social-Democrats!

Andhowever much you may abuse and curse and revile “Lenin’s”
conference in January 1912, the racket you are raising will not enable you
to deceive anyone but people who want to be deceived. For, after the
January Conference, one cannot be a politically-conscious and honest
Social-Democrat, nor speak of the state of affairs in the R.S.D.L.P.,
without giving a clear and explicit answer to the question:
isNasha Zaryaliquidationist or not, and does it belong in or
outside the Party?

Thespate of varied and wordy abuse which the Tyszka conference slung
at the “Leninists” boils down to one thing—an accusation ofsplittingthe Party.

TheJanuary Conference of the R.S.D.L.P. considered only theNasha
Zaryagroup to be outside the Party. This is a fact known to all. From
this fact even Tyszka and his friends could have drawn the simple and
obvious conclusion that the accusation of splitting the Party means
regarding theNasha Zaryagroup as aPartygroup.

Evena child would see that this conclusion is inevitable. And Tyszka
and Co. are long past childhood years.

Anyonewho accuses us of splitting the Party should have sufficient
elementary courage and elementary honesty to say plainly: “TheNasha
Zaryagroup is not liquidationist”, “itought notto be
outside the Party, but belongsinsidethe Party”, “it is alegitimate shade of opinionin the Party”, and so on.

Thisis the heart of the matter, that the gentlemen who accuse us of
splitting the Party, such as Tyszka, say thisin undertones,
shyly, in a roundabout way (for thisnaturallyfollows from the
howls about a split) but they areafraidto say it plainly!

Itis not easyto say andprovethatNasha
Zaryaought to be in the Party. Anyone who says so assumes a certain
responsibility, decides a certain question of principle, and plainlydefendsthe chief liquidators. One may (and should) regard such a
person as a supporter of the liquidators, but one must admit that he has
his convictions and it cannot be denied that he is politically honest, if
only within the limits of the narrow question whether or not a definite
group of liquidators should be in the Party.

Butwhen an entire organisation, if one may call it that, or a sum
total of the organisations of a whole territory, dodgingly and stealthily,
shamefacedly and without speaking straight out, defends the liquidators and
accuses those who have expelled the liquidators from the Party of causing a
split, but does not dare to say plainly, “This group of liquidators ought
to be in the Party”, the conclusion inevitably suggests itself that what
we have before us is not an organisation of Social-Democrats who share
such-and-such views, but acircle of plotterswho want to make
political capital out of “utilising” the struggle between the liquidators
and the anti-liquidators.

Tothose who are familiar with the internal affairs of the
R.S.D.L.P. since 1907, it has long been an open secret that Tyszka and Co.,
like the Bundists who preceded them, are specimens of this type of
intriguer, “Marxists by weight”, or “Tushino

turncoats”,[3]as Social-Democrats call such people. Tyszka, like some
of the Bundists, bases his entire “stand” in the Party on agamebetween the liquidators and the anti-liquidators, on mediation, on
profiting from being the extra “weight in the scales”, without which
neither the liquidators nor the anti-liquidators can have a majority!

Inthe autumn of 1911, when this old “game” of Tyszka’s, of which
everyone had grown tired, resulted in his collapse, he was openly called a
plotter by the press ofbothopposed trends—the liquidators and
the anti-liquidators.

Indeed,place yourself in the position of an extra “weight in the
scales”, and then the illogical, childishly naive, ludicrously feeble and
helpless resolutions of the Tyszka conference will at once becomeperfectlyintelligible to you. This is just the way a plotter
should speak: I condemn liquidationism—but I don’t say plainly who are
the overtand consistent liquidators! I admit that liquidationism endangers the very
existence of the Party—but I don’t say plainly whether or not
such-and-such a group ought to be in the Party! I canalways,
under all circumstances, derive an advantage from a “position” such as
this, can make “political capital” out of it, forwithout methe
anti-liquidator cannot defeat the liquidator,without methe
liquidator can not have an assured place in the Party!!

“Tyszka”politics are not an accidental or isolated phenomenon. When
there is a split and, in general, when there is a bitter struggle between
trends, it isinevitablethat groups should appear which base
their existence on a continuous darting from one side to the other, and on
petty intrigue. This is a sad and unpleasant feature of the life of our
Party, a feature accentuated by the conditions of revolutionary work in
exile. Groups of intriguers, and features of intrigue in the policy of
certain groups, particularly those lacking strong ties with Russia, are
phenomena one has to be aware of if one does not want to be fooled and to
fall victim to various “misunderstandings”.

Theslogan of “unity” is “popular”, of course, among wide sections
of the Workers, who do not knowwith whomthat unity should be
established,what concessionsto a particular group thatunityimplies, andon what basisthe policy of including
the liquidators in the Party or expelling them from it is shaped.

Tobe sure, nothing could be easier than demagogically taking advantage
of thisincomprehensionof the essence of the matter to howl about
a “split”. Nothing could be easier than disguising diplomacy by a demand
for the “unity” of trends that have irrevocably drifted apart.

Buthowever “popular” the slogan of “unity” among
politically-ignorant people, and however convenient it is now for various
demagogues, intriguers and group diplomats to hide behind it, we shall
never stop demanding from every politically-conscious Social-Democrat a
clear and explicit answer to the question decided by the January 1912
Conference of the R.S.D.L.P.

Theconference which the liquidators convened in August 1912 showed
clearly that all the controversies turn on the question of liquidationism,
on whether the liquidators’ groups are pro-Party or non-Party (or even
anti-Party). Whoever evades this cardinal issue mystifies himself and
others.

Asa matter of fact, talk about the “factionalism” of the January
Conference, and so on, is just such anevasionof the cardinal
issue. All right, gentlemen, we might answer the talkers, let us assume
that the January Conference was arch-factionalist and disruptive, that it
was not duly authorised, and so on. But are you not using these “terrible
words” merelyto clear yourselves in your own eyes? A section of
the Social-Democrats—it makes no difference which—declared in January
thatNasha Zaryaconsisted of anti-Party liquidators who were
outside the Party. That opinion is substantiated in a resolution—a
detailed, well-grounded resolution prompted by four years of Party history.

Anyonewho sincerely wishes to explain and refute the error of these,
let us say, “January” Social-Democrats must analyse and refute this
resolution. He must say and prove thatNasha Zaryashould be in
the Party, that its ideas are not ruinous to the Party, that such-and-such
concessions should he made to that group, that such-and-such obligations
should be demanded of it, that the guarantees of the fulfilment of these
obligations should consist in this or that, and that the extent of the
influence of the group within the Party should be established in
such-and-such a way.

Toput the questionin this waywould mean conscientiously and
honestly refuting the convictions of the January Social-Democrats, would
meanexplainingto the workers what you think wrong. But the point
is thatnot oneof those who now engage in cheap clamour about a
split has taken a single step towards putting the question in this way!!

Thatis why contemptuously brushing aside the demagogues and
intriguers, we calmly repeat: our resolution expelling the liquidators has
not been refuted and is irrefutable. New facts, such as the publication of
the liquidationistLuch[4]which has made Trotsky’s phrase-mongeringits own, merely increase the force of our resolution a hundred-fold. The
facts—the May Day action, the rallying of hundreds of workers’ groups
around the anti-liquidationist newspaper, the elections to the Fourth Duma
by the worker curia—areconclusiveproof of the correctness of
our stand against the liquidators.

Noamount of howling about a “split” can shake this conviction,
because this howling is a cowardly, covert, hypocriticaldefenceof the liquidators.

TheJanuary 1912 Conference of the R.S.D.L.P. posed yet
another serious question of principle, that of thestructureof
our Party with regard to nationalities. For lack of space, I shall only
briefly touch on this question.

Completeor incomplete federation, “federation of the worst type” or
complete unity? That is the question.

TheTyszka conference replies to this problem, too, with nothing but
abuse and shouts about “fraud”, “distortion of the facts”, and so
on. What senseless shouters they are, this Tyszka and his retinue!

Thecomplete separateness of the Lettish, Polish and Jewish (Bund)
Social-Democrats is a fact. Every Polish Social-Democrat knows that there
isnot, and has never been,anythinglike unity with the
Bund in Poland. The same is true of the Russians and the Bund, etc. The
non-Russians have their own special organisations, their central bodies,
congresses, etc. The Russians lackthese things, andtheirCentral Committee cannot decide Russian questions without
the participation of the Bundists, Poles and Letts who are fighting one
another and who are unfamiliar with Russian matters.

Thisis a fact, one that no amount of abuse can
suppress.Everyonein our Party has seen it since 1907. Everyone
has sensed the falsity of this situation. That is why our Conference dubbed
it “afederation of the worst

			     type”.[1]

Allhonest and sincere Social-Democrats must give a pertinent answer to
this presentation of the question.

Thecorrectness of this presentation of the question wasborne
outmost convincingly by the August conference, which, asevenPlekhanov admits, “adapted socialism to nationalism” by its
notorious resolution on “national cultural” autonomy.

TheBund and Tyszka’s Executive are alike in swearing by all the saints
that they stand for unity, while in Warsaw, Lodz and elsewhere there is acomplete split between them!!

Theconnection between the “liquidationist question” and the
“national question” is not an invention of ours but has been revealed by
the realities of life.

Let,then, all serious-minded Social-Democrats raise and discuss the
“national question” as well. Federation or unity? Federation for the
“nationalities”, with separate centres andwithouta separate
centre for the Russians, or complete unity? Nominal unity with a virtual
split (or secession) of the Bund’s local organisations, or real unity from
top to bottom?

Anyonewho thinks he can get away from these questions is sorely
mistaken. Anyone who counts on a simple restoration of the “federation of
the worst type” of 1907–11,mystifies himself and others. It is
alreadyimpossibleto restore that federation. That misbegotten
child will never rise from the dead. The Party has moved away from it for
good.

Wherehas it moved to? Towards an “Austrian”

federation?[5]Or towards acompleterenunciation of
federation, to actual unity? We are for the latter. We are opposed to
“adapting socialism to nationalism”.

Leteveryone give full thought to this question and finally decide it.

[1]Seepresent edition, Vol. 17, pp. 464–65.—Ed.

[2]ThePolish Social-Democrats’ “territorial conference” met on
August 11–17 (N. S.), 1912. All the participants were supporters of the
Executive Committee of the Social-Democratic Party of the Kingdom of Poland
and Lithuania (Zarzadists), which took a conciliatory position in regard to
the liquidators and opposed the Rozlamists, who upheld the Bolshevik
standpoint. The Conference approved the activities of the Executive and
resolved to dissolve the Party organisations that supported the
Rozlamists. It declared for a tactical agreement with the Bund and the Left
wing of the P.S.P. in the Fourth Duma elections. It also adopted a
decision—analysed in this article—concerning the attitude of the Polish
Social-Democrats to the R.S.D.L.P.

[3]In1608 Russia was invaded by Polish interventionist troops under
Dmitry II the Impostor, an agent of the Polish feudal lords (he was made
out to be the youngest son of Tsar Ivan the Terrible). The invaders drew
near Moscow and camped in the village of Tushino. The Impostor formed a
government with its own Court as a counter to the Moscow government. Some
of the Russian noblemen and boyars deserted alternately to the Moscow and
the Tushino governments in an effort to safeguard themselves in the event
of the victory of either side. It was those deserters that were nicknamed
“Tushino turncoats”.

[4]Luch(The Ray)—a legal daily newspaper published by
the Menshevik liquidators in St. Petersburg from September 16 (29), 1912,
to July 5 (18), 1913. In all, 237 issues appeared. The newspaper was
supported chiefly by donations from the liberals. Ideologically it was
directed by P. B. Axelrod, F. I. Dan, L. Martov and A. S. Martynov. The
liquidators used it to oppose the Bolshevik’s revolutionary tactics. They
advocated the opportunist slogan of founding a so-called open party,
opposed revolutionary mass strikes, and sought to revise the major
provisions of the Party Programme. Lenin wrote that “Luchhas
been enslaved by a liberal policy” and called it a renegade organ.

[5]Theterm “Austrian”federationrefers to the
Austrian Social-Democratic Party’s organisation on the national
principle. The Vienna Party Congress in 1897 abolished the united party,
and replaced it by a federation of six national “Social—Democratic
groups”:

German, Czech, Polish, Ruthenian, Italian and South Slav. These groups were
all united by a joint congress and a common Central Executive. The
Brünn Congress in 1899 reorganised the Central Executive into a
federal body composed of the executive commit tees of the national
Social-Democratic parties. Organisational federalism resulted in the
break-up of the integral Social-Democratic Party of Austria.